Menace II Society review

  Number 807 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Hughes' brother 1993 teen-crime drama Menace II Society.

Caine Lawson (Tyrin Turner) and Kevin "O-Dog" Anderson" (Larenz Tate) are two boys growing up in the rough streets of Crenshaw, Los Angeles. Together they need to navigate the dangerous life of gang violence and drugs.

To any budding film-makers out there, I'll give you some unsolicited advice. Don't do what the Hughes Brothers did and have your two main characters shoot to death an innocent Korean couple who are just running their shop. It isn't a great way to get me to care about your characters. It's not like it was an accident or the boys felt guilty; on the contrast, O-Dog constantly boasts about his crime.

It was a bad start and things only got worse from there. Menace II Society offered a superficial surface look at a deeply-nuanced issue. It's difficult not to draw comparisons to the the 1991 Boyz n the Hood which has similar subject matter.

The main comparison is one of quality. Whereas Boyz n the Hood was good, Menace II Society was not. Tonally, it was all wrong. The Hughes Brothers, wanting to contrast with the hopeful Boyz n the Hood, were aiming for a more nihilistic tone. Yet, I detected little nihilism. It wasn't like the characters were bitterly resigned to their situations; they were embracing them. O-Dog constantly shows the CCTV footage of him shooting the Korean couple to anybody who's interested. Again, why am I supposed to care about or like this character?

The dialogue was also incredibly ham-fisted. I was rolling my eyes so much that at point they got stuck in my skull. It reminded me of Green Street Hooligans where Charlie Hunnum had to recite the Cockney rhyming dictionary.

It didn't help that the actors didn't believe what they were saying either. All round, the acting wasn't great. I want to say something about Jada Pinkett Smith who debuted in this film, but Will doesn't like it when his wife's name is in other people's mouths.

I didn't like this film at all. The characters were horrible, the dialogue was corny and there was nothing nihilistic about it.

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War Review

 Number 185 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Korean war film, Tae Guk Gi: the Brotherhood of War.

Set during the Korean War, Tae Guk Gi focusses on brothers Lee Jin-Tae (Jan Dong-Gun) and Lee Jin-Soek (Won Bin.) The naive and innocent Jin-Doek is drafted into the army. To protect his younger brother, Jin-Tae also enrols. But the war soon changes both brothers beyond comprehension.

Since I started this challenge, I've watched a lot of war films and I've found the best films are the ones that refuse to shy away from the true horrors of war. Tae Guk Gi did exactly that. This was a relentless, non-stop, two and a half hour lesson in the brutality of man. As this is a South Korean film, you might expect them to be portrayed as the heroes and the North Koreans as the villains. But war is rarely that simple. We see both sides commit atrocities.

Jin-Tae discovers that if he earns the Tae Guk Cordon of the Order of Military Merit - the highest military model possible, he would have the power to send his brother home. He volunteers for progressively riskier missions and slowly transforms into a cold-blooded killer.

Upon running into a childhood friend who has been drafted for the North, Jin-Tae is prepared to slaughter him until his younger brother intervenes. Later on, Jin-Tae arranges for the POWs to fight for his own amusement. The North is just as bad. They massacre whole villages and booby-trap the dead bodies. War is never as simple as "he is good and he is bad." There is always a lot of morally grey. This is demonstrated in the supporting cast from the man whose whole family was massacred by the communists and now wants to kill them all to the young Song-Yong, who like Jin-Soek, doesn't want to kill anybody.

Granted the whole brothers/friends gong to war as comrades and slowly becoming enemies is not the most original of ideas, but Tae Guk Gi did it well. In the initial fifteen minutes, we have a clear idea of who the brothers are - Jin-Doek is young and naive with aspirations of college. Jin-Tae is street-smart and confident - he shines shoes to earn enough money to send his younger brother to college. But the brothers are very loyal to each other which is what makes their gradual separation even the more painful.

When Jin-Tae and Jin-Soek return to their home town, Jin-Tae's fiance, Young-Shin, is accused of being a communist and is taken to be shot. Despite the brother's best efforts to save her, she is still executed and the brothers are arrested for trying to save her with Jin-Soek supposedly dying when his prison is burnt down. He survives and later finds out that Jin-Tae has defected to the North Koreans and is now one of their elite commanders. Jin-Soek goes to rescue him, but it appears that Jin-Tae is too far gone. When a battle breaks out and it looks like all hope is lost, Jin-Tae recognises his brother and sacrifices himself so he can escape. And this was a nice way to round out their story arcs. They began as brothers, turned to enemies and finished as brothers again.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, I think it would be for its choppy editing. Some of the battle scenes went on for too long and some of the peace scenes were cut too short. At times it did make for a confusing watch. And I also wonder whether the film over did the action scenes. Yes, I know, war is confusing and chaotic, but the frenetic camerawork and constant explosions did become a little tiresome after a while.

Overall this was a great film and will join the likes of Saving Private Ryan, The Deer Hunter and Full Metal Jacket as one of the best war films of all time.

Blood Diamond Review

 Number 300 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2006 thriller, and one of many Leonardo Dicaprio's acting nominations, Blood Diamond.

Set in civil-war ravaged Sierra Leone, Blood Diamond brings together mercenary Danny Archer (Dicaprio,) fisherman Solomon Vandy (Dijumon Hounsou) and journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) as they all try to bring some good into the world.

I bought my a girlfriend a diamond necklace for our one year anniversary. Having seen this film I don't think I'm ever going to buy another diamond again. Sorry Sam. But this film is a damning indictment of the diamond industry and a damning indictment of colonialism in general. In 2022, the horrors of colonialism are nothing new but this film still lays them bare.

The RUF brutally chops off the hands of the Sierra Leoneans who may otherwise vote against them, but they only learned this violence from their colonial oppressors. Chopping off limbs, as is pointed out in the film, is something that started with the Belgians in the Congo. And anybody who knows their colonial history knows about the atrocities that the Belgians committed.

And right from the start, we see this savagery in the evil Captain Poison (David Harewood.) He leads a division of the RUF who massacres Solomon's village and sends him to a diamond mine. Here he find a huge diamond, but he has to quickly bury it when the army come and send him to jail. Enter Leonardo Dicaprio as Danny and also where the film misses its mark a little.

Danny Archer has debts to pay and so agrees to reunite Solomon with his family in exchange for the diamond. But with the help of Maddy Bowen, he realises that he cares about more than money. While Leo was great in his role, I would argue that the character itself was cliched. How many times we seen a reluctant hero/lovable rogue overcome their morally questionable qualities to become a bonified hero? And this is usually with the help of an attractive female lead such as Jennifer Connelly. 

And So, I think the film focussed too much on the wrong character. Because Archer is a mercenary, he is used to fighting in a warzone whereas Solomon was not. Solomon was only a fisherman desperate to get back to his family. And I think that would have made him a far more interesting character to focus upon. He would have been a true fish out of water.

And maybe that's why the film didn't quite land for me. I could see it trying to make me angry or break my heart, but while I was sad, I certainly didn't shed any tears. For what it was, this was a powerful film with great performances by Dicaprio, Connelly and especially Hounsou, there was something holding it back true greatness.